The Ted Cruz RNC Vote Your Conscience Speech-The “Charles Sumner Caning” Moment
The TED CRUZ "Vote your Conscience" Speech was the "Charles Sumner Caning" Moment - Beaten and Battered, it could…www.spreaker.com
This election cycle was supposed to be entirely different. With the initial candidacy announcements over a year ago (As early as late March/early April 2015), it was looking like the ideological purity struggle between the “Emotional morality of that ‘Sweet’ Democratic Socialism” (which is more like a reimagined and reconstituted form of Communism) VS. Constitutional Republicanism (Small Government, rugged individualistic Capitalism) would finally be hashed out once and for all. Unfortunately, the Establishment on both sides of the aisle have shoved their grassroots out into the parking lots of their conventions in favor of that Cult of Personality Candidate that will continue to uphold each party’s Status Quo. Some within these separated grassroots factions have shared interests and some common ground, with differentiated cores. Some don’t truly understand why they even have those beliefs, as many of the Bernie Sanders “Sandernistas” have based upon their indoctrination. They don’t realize Capitalism is the answer for what they are actually longing to implement. And THAT was who Ted Cruz was directing his speech towards. The outrage over the “vote your conscience” speech given by Cruz is completely ridiculous.
To think that his sole reason for his speech would have been to endorse Donald Trump based on a “Good Faith Pledge” that Donald Trump himself disavowed on national television months ago is to be completely naïve. To assume that a Candidate would turn their back on their core principles, in order to graciously support an individual that publically impugned and assassinated their character, branding them a LIAR, is complete madness. To surmise that a Candidate, who was painted as an adulterous philanderer for having affairs with 5 women in convention center closets and with unconfirmed extra-marital relationships with campaign managers/advisors, would offer a conciliatory recommendation for the highest office in the land is laughable…and even intellectually vapid at best. To think that you can sabotage a person’s speech by yanking his microphone audio as its being aired on a major news network, where the only sound you could hear was the noise of Servers taking orders and clanking plates shrouding a Candidate’s impassioned plea for Constitutionality, and then expect that Candidate to provide a glowing endorsement is plain lunacy. To opine that a Candidate is the ultimate conservative choice, just after that candidate attacked your father with false stories of a relationship between him and one of the most notorious presidential assassins in American history would be literally unhinged. To think that his speech was “Self Serving” as many of the RINO Establishment players were trumpeting on FOX News, when he began his speech with congratulating Trump on his nomination- QUOTE: “I congratulate Donald Trump on winning the nomination last night”, is completely delusional.”
Now, Ted Cruz’s speech was actually filled with meat and potatoes that the convention attendees were sopping with biscuits, until “someone” (More like the Trump agents — specifically the Cruz infatuated Peter King) decided to initiate a chant of “En-Dorse-Trump, En-Dorse-Trump”. This shut down the overall reception of Ted Cruz’s final moments of his speech. Ted Cruz responded with, “I appreciate the enthusiasm from the NY delegation” Anyone get the NY delegation reference? That was a dig towards the same crew that yanked his Microphone audio feed during his speech (which aired on Fox News and lacked the concern of the Fox News producers to attempt an expeditious fix to the problem)?
The focus changed from his ideas and messaging to that of an anticipation as to whether or not an endorsement would be teetering on the brink. Only, it never did.
But let’s take a look as what Ted DID cover:
· He wanted to address what was really at stake. — The Case for America, the case that Freedom Matters. He made the point that America is the only nation were We, The People constrain our government.
· He gave the answer to how to constrain either POTUS pick — Down ticket voting (Municipal, State, & Congressional representation).
· He gave the case for “Constitutional Conservative Inclusiveness”, which includes all sides of the political spectrum, including disaffected millennials and Bernie Sanders fans, or “Sandernistas”
· He made the case for Individualism — Choice of your own Doctor, Individual Choice to defend yourselves under the 2nd Amendment, Choice of your own children’s education
· He debunked the notion of the effectiveness of a Large Federal Government. He conversely focused on the importance of States Rights. Gay marriage, Legalization of Drugs…these were all “experiments” that the localities should be allowed to vote on for their own preferences. It shouldn’t be a “One Size Fits Al” mandate from the Federal Government Bureaucracy.
He made the points that we need to focus on to straighten the path of our nation
· Border Security
· Elimination of Trade Deals with Terrorist Nations
· Taking the Islamic Threat Seriously
· Minimize taxation of the Citizenry
· Removal or Obamacare
Cruz made a case for freedom to everyone that has been pushed aside in favor of a self-serving political machine, including Sanders supporters. It wasn’t simply a speech for GOP party unity, but one without endorsement…it was a National Unity speech for the disenfranchised. It was for EVERYONE disenfranchised by Establishments on either sides. He was making an additional case to those who think that Bernie Sander’s America is the answer. He was displaying that Conservatism actually is! It was a Reagan “We carry the message they’re waiting for” idea. It was Constitutionalism, with an Olive Branch to Misguided Millennials. And by the way, Reagan never officially endorsed Gerald Ford at the convention, but when he spoke, he spoke of the values that Conservatism provides and that we should revere. Whether or not you agree that Ted’s speech was “Reaganesque”, you must admit that his goal of making that case was met.
Unfortunately for us, the only part of the speech we continually heard was the part that was never said — A Cruz Endorsement of Trump. They cite the betrayal of Cruz’s word based on the Loyalty Pledge that the candidates were to sign to eliminate a 3rd party run by candidates that didn’t win (But mostly to ensure an unhinged, unpredictable 3rd party run by the Businessman himself). The argument against Ted Cruz’s Non-Endorsement was rooted in the infamous Pledge — signed by Trump on September 2, 2015. Donald Trump eventually eviscerated the Loyalty Pledge on March 29, 2016
“COOPER And, welcome back. We’re talking to Donald Trump. A week before the Wisconsin primary, voters asking the Republican candidates the questions that matter tot hem, looking for answers to help them decide. Before we go back to the audience, I want to ask you a question I asked to Senator Cruz as well. more than six months ago you pledged to support the Republican nominee, whoever that may be.
A lot has changed since then. It sounded, when I was pressing Senator Cruz on it, sounded like he was saying he was saying he’d have a hard time supporting somebody who went after his wife.
TRUMP: Honestly, he doesn’t have to support me. I’m not asking for his support. I want the people’s support.
COOPER: Do you continue to pledge whoever the Republican nominee is?
TRUMP: No. I don’t anymore.
COOPER: You don’t?
TRUMP: No, we’ll see who it is.
COOPER: You won’t promise to support the Republican nominee?
TRUMP: He was essentially saying the same thing. Let me just tell you, he doesn’t have to support me. I have tremendous support right now from the people. I’m way over two million votes more than him. I have many, many, more delegates than him. Like, many, many more delegates. As I said before, he was talking about his great victory the night Utah — well, I won Arizona. Many more delegates. Many, many more delegates.
I don’t really want him to do something he’s not comfortable with. Just like I can’t imagine Jeb Bush — look, I beat these people badly. I beat Jeb Bush. I beat the governor of this state, the governor of this state came in, he was favored to win. He was at 22 points. Then he said something bad about me and I hit him very hard, and he went boom, and he left the race. He was very early…
COOPER: …Just so I’m clear…
TRUMP: I don’t want to make people uncomfortable. I don’t need their support. Now, maybe it will be a negative, maybe it won’t.
COOPER: So, the pledge you took is null and void. The idea of supporting whoever…
TRUMP: … I have defeated…
COOPER: … the Republican nominee is, you say you will no longer guarantee you will support the Republican nominee…
TRUMP: … I have been treated very unfairly.
I won the state of Missouri, right? No, I have.
Aww, Cruz people.
I’ve been treated very unfairly.”
So obviously, 3/29/2016 was the day Donald Trump eliminated the pledge. Even Kasich was aware.
Jeb Bush resigned his allegiance to this pledge on May 6th 2016, when he announced via his Facebook Page his intentions for Presidential Support:
” In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. –
That’s called voting up and down the ticket, which Cruz made the case for in his speech.
Lindsey Graham turned his back on the Loyalty Pledge that same Friday:
“I also cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.
After the election, regardless of who wins the presidency I will do everything I can to help our new President deal with the many challenges facing our nation. The next President will inherit a mess and will need all the help they can get.
I will enthusiastically support Republicans for other offices in South Carolina and throughout the country. I will focus my time, energy and effort on raising resources and advocating for our Republican majorities in the House and Senate. It is imperative that we have strong, reliable conservatives acting as a check and balance against excesses in government. I strongly encourage Republicans and Independents to vote even if you are disappointed in your choice for President.
Finally, I do not plan to attend the Republican convention in Cleveland this summer.”
Rand Paul, as of this July 26, 2016 morning VIA a Breitbart article, stated that he would stick with the pledge and support the nominee (Although, the word “endorse” was yet to be declared. But after Mr. Paul’s deal that he cut with Mitch McConnell, it should be as no surprise that his strong understanding of Constitutionality, that I admire, does not match the size of his Cajones, to which are about the size of Donald Trump’s hands.
But Donald Trump knows how to play on the stupidity or naivety of the low information crowd. This pledge issue was another “Cruz stole Iowa from Ben Carson because Ben Carson told everyone he was going home to get clean drawers and CNN Reported it” moment. Pin the issue completely on Cruz as if he was the only one involved. Even though everybody rushed to inform delegates that Carson left, they pinned it all on Cruz. So even though the pledge was signed by Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, they acted as if Cruz was the only one who broke the pledge, even though the other person who took the pledge was the governor of the state convention and didn’t even show up.
Cruz DID say he would show support for the Republican nominee. So exactly what would be the legal definition of “Showing Support”? Would it be actually attending the convention, as opposed to the sitting governor of the HOST STATE’s absence from putting on his party’s convention? Would it be speaking to the constituents to fortify the party platform? Or were the words, “I ENDORSE DONALD TRUMP” be required? I don’t believe so…What we witnessed the other night was a moment from past history.
This was a “Charles Sumner” Moment — When Charles Sumner was beaten w/a cane in the Senate Chamber for following principles & not party loyalty, a new party formed.
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was known for his deep commitment to the cause of civil rights and emerged as an antislavery leader in the late 1840s. In 1849, in the Roberts case, Sumner argued for integrated public schools in Massachusetts. He also became active in political protests against Texas’s annexation and the Mexican War. In 1848, he joined with other disenchanted Whigs and Democrats to form the Free-Soil party, which opposed the extension of slavery into newly acquired territories. Despite the Free-Soil defeat in 1848, and especially after the passage of the odious Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, Sumner persevered in his antislavery activities. In 1851, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Free-Soiler, where he campaigned against what he saw as southern aggression on the slavery issue. In 1855 he endorsed the Republican Party, which had been organized primarily to oppose slavery interests. As North-South tensions heightened, so did Sumner’s rhetoric. In his Crime against Kansas speech, delivered in May 1856, he lambasted southern efforts to extend slavery into Kansas and attacked his colleague, Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina. Shortly after that speech, Butler’s cousin, Congressman Preston Brooks, assaulted Sumner on the Senate floor. He spent three and a half years recovering from the beating. When Sumner returned to the Senate in 1859, the North-South rift had intensified, but he, like most other Republicans, did not realize or perhaps care that Republican ascendancy would bring on civil war. From the war’s beginning Sumner argued that it should be waged to abolish slavery, not solely to preserve the Union. He regularly pressed President Abraham Lincoln to sponsor legislation to free the slaves, grant them civil rights, and enlist them in the Union army. He also argued for stringent conditions for readmission of Confederate states to the Union.
Your CHARLES SUMNER moment, ladies & gentlemen…not a physical caining…but a verbal one. But rumor has it that a physical one DID occur…with Sheldon Adelson, the Rich RNC Donor Casino owner and Trump supporter. It was reported that he was responsible for not allowing Cruz into the RNC lounge. Others have said it was a physical confrontation with him along with Susan Hutchison, chairwomen for the Washington State GOP. From an unsubstantiated report, “As they wereheaded to the elevator that would take them down to the super glamhospitality suites, Susan Hutchison blocked their way. According to a witness,Hutchison “went bananas” at the couple, calling Cruz a “traitor to the party”and his refusal to endorse Trump “inexcusable.” She had to be restrained and was hustled away by security, though she doesn’t seem to remember that part. I just told him I thought his speech was inexcusable, and I was so disappointed in him,” Hutchison said… she didn’t recall Cruz’s response. “I was angry, everybody was angry. You heard everybody booing him. We were astounded at what he did.” Hutchison said she did not think security got involved. To add insult to injury, the Cruz couple were not allowed into that hospitality suite. Turns out that suite was Sheldon Adelson’s and he is a Trump supporter. Some have said the Adelson’s confrontation with Cruz was somewhat physical as well, although I can’t verify if this is true or not.
The Trumpkins and the GOP Establishment were trying to put their boot on Ted Cruz’s neck & said, “SAY HIS NAME, SAY HIS NAME!”
He didn’t do it, folks. Kudos, Ted!
There was nothing in that speech that was disparaging, vindictive, slanderous, or hate filled. This wasn’t an anti-Christian display of a lack forgiveness? When you forgive someone, you don’t ENDORSE that person! Some that you may have forgiven may not have even changed the actions and behaviors that caused the animosity towards which your original rift caused a falling out. So you forgive…but you aren’t mandated to endorse their behavior! Judging by the cordial behavior surrounding the discussion for Trump requesting that he speak, EVEN THOUGH by winning the 2nd highest number of delegates into the race gives you the RIGHT to speak, shows that possibly forgiveness was there. I don’t know his heart, but that is usually a good step. Being gracious enough to congratulate him on his victory is another step in that direction. To put aside the issue completely and to focus on what the actual issues in the nation are currently, shows the importance of his focus…another step towards what someone does to forgive…to move forward on what is important and not hold a grudge or take a below the belt shot, when he clearly could while holding the floor as he was allowed.
The Slanted News Media Outlets and Misinformed “Trumpers” have cited that many in the #NeverTrump Movement have turned their backs on Ted Cruz after this speech. These fail to realize #NeverTrump wasn’t exactly “Pro-Cruz”, just as Mike Lee/Ken Cucinelli aren’t “Establishment” by simply having an R by their name. The Never Trump movement was kick started by the Marco Rubio supporters, more specifically Liz Mair’s “Make America Awesome” Super PAC who was responsible for putting out the racy photos of Melania from GQ in an ad attempting to impugn the morality of the Nominee, to which trump revisited in his press conference the following morning. They latched onto Cruz after Rubio suspended his campaign in order to defeat Trump. There was no connection or even loyalty to support him from the beginning. So, sure, you’re going to have some defectors.
Speaking of Trump’s Press Conference the following the RNC Speech that he gave, he made wild assumptions. He made the assumption that Cruz added sentences that weren’t actually in the transcript of the written speech:
“Justa couple of things: I knew his speech. They gave me his speech. I knew exactlywhat his speech was, because when you go up to speak, you have to give yourspeech. You know, we don’t want surprises, right? So they gave it, they came tome, they said, “It’s a boring speech, Mr. Trump. Nothing good, nothingbad. He just congratulates you on the victory and here’s the speech.” Well he got up, and in the first two sentences, he added a sentence. In other words, he got up, and he added a sentence. Which could have been viewed as a nasty thing in terms of what he said because it was implying something which is wrong, but that’s okay. So he took his speech — and you’re bound by that speech, just like you’re bound by the pledge. You’re bound by the pledge. So Ted Cruz took his speech that was done — was on the teleprompter — said hello, then made a statement that wasn’t on the speech and went back to his speech.”
But the off the cuff addition to the Cruz speech was this line: “And just like each of us, I’d like to see the principles of our party succeed in November” — hardly anything nefarious and of any concern at all. But Trump can use legalize to say, “Well he did add things that weren’t there” assuming his minions would never see the actual transcripts of the speech. Trump has stated that he would consider creating a Super PAC to attack Ted Cruz and John Kasich. There’s something very vindictive of a Presidential nominee that looks to create a Super PAC in order to destroy those whom he’s already defeated. Is vindictiveness a Fruit of the Spirit, Frank and Jerry?
Then, he doubled down on the Rafael Cruz Lee Harvey Oswald conspiracy. Even Photo specialist that questioned if that was Mr. Cruz in the infamous picture said there’s a little similarity…but more Dissimilarity than similarity. SERIOUSLY??
Now, as far as the Trump Media and their supporters, they’ve tried to make a case that looking at the Russian Email Hack of the DNC emails that were released through WikiLeaks have verified many of his wild assertions. They have believed that they’ve found a few emails concerning Ted Cruz…and, like the Roger Stone/Bridebart hit pieces that we were bombarded with during the primary, they’re taking the association of a name within these emails as an admission of guilt.
First was the news of the Cruz campaign asking, the DNC for donations to help fortify a Delegate Protection fund, due to death threats by the Trump campaign. Upon close inspection of the email, you’ll notice that the Cruz campaign email was sent to Eric Bennett of the DNC’s personal gmail account. This email, most likely due to the nature of the subject matter, it was forwarded to his official DNC email account, where it would be scooped up within the net of the wikileaks leak. Now, if you were a supporter of Ted Cruz or had given your email address to their campaign and decided to do an email search by subject line, you would have noticed that YOU received the exact same email. That’s because it was a form email sent by all Cruz email accounts asking for donations. There was no “plea” to the DNC for financial assistance. But the rush to judgment in order to vilify and smear Senator Cruz still went to the presses.
The next was the so-called “CONFIRMATION” of a Raphael Cruz/Lee Harvey Oswald Connection
From Wikileaks :
“While I will note that Cruz’s father was in fact a militant who fought the Batista regime (which Fidel Castro defeated) and it would not be unusual for him to be caught up in the ugly web of Cuban militants with questionable histories (just look at the cabinet in the basement, one of the Watergate burglars was…Cuban…with plenty of other examples including a guy who blew up a plane and was basically given safe refuge in Texas…not to mention those who were involved in the ugly Central American wars in the 80's… I think this is a fun hit. I made edits to dispute each claim.”
So, I can only assume that because Raphael Cruz DID fight with the Batista Regime in his youth in Cuba, the Trump Low Information Supporters ASSUMED that he was a militant that would fall in with Oswald. BUT, if you actually had background on Cruz and were familiar with him as his supporters are, you’d realize that Raphael Cruz has been more than forthcoming about his time in Cuba and how he fought the Castro Regime…this doesn’t indicate a relationship with Oswald. This is akin to saying that a person is a supporter of Mao simply because they ate at Number One Chinese Buffet.
They seemed to find much humor in Trump’s attacks on Ted Cruz’s father:
Could use the Eric Walker touch Dangerous Donald’s Conspiracy Theories: “All I know is what is on the internet.” This morning on Fox and Friends, Donald Trump accused Ted Cruz’s father of helping with JFK’s assassination — ”parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.” So, while we’re on the subject of the GOP’s presumptive standard bearer just spouting nonsense he reads on the internet or in the tabloids, here are some of the other conspiracy theories and facts that the great mind of that Donald Trump’s “good brain” felt it was necessary to entertain: is gathering from the tabloids and the internet:
· Donald Trump speculates that Antonin Scalia was murdered
· Trump not knowing questioning whether President Obama was born in America, and then sending investigators to Hawaii to look into it — still cited as one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time. The President was born in Hawaii.
· Trump thinks that vaccination causes autism. It doesn’t
· Trump claims that thousands of American Muslims cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed. Didn’t happen.
· Trump repeatedly telling a hoax story about an American general executing Muslim prisoners with bullets covered in pig’s blood. Also not true.
o. After it being told it wasn’t true, Trump doubling-down on his claim that a man who tried to rush on stage at one of his rallies was associated with ISIS — because “all I know is what is on the internet.”
This would explain his Alex Jones exclusive interviews in December of 2015 and how he has galvanized the Jones Fan Base.
Have you ever in your lifetime witnessed people who are supposedly “Anti-Establishment” as trump supporters scream “YOU BETTER PICK OUR LESSER OF 2 EVILS?” They scream: YOU WILL UNITE, DAMN IT, OR YOU’LL PAY! WE LET YOU SPEAK AT OUR TRUMP PARTY THAT WE JOINED ONLY A FEW YRS AGO! YOU WILL COMPLY AND YOU WILL LOVE IT!
Not I…Apparently, Not Cruz either.